TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee and he has filed an affidavit stating reasons for delay. We have considered the facts and heard both the parties and thereafter we are satisfied with reasons stated therein. Therefore we condone the delay of 78 days and proceed with the appeals. For the sake of convenience, we would like to dispose of all the appeals by way of a common order. First of all we would take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 963/Ahd/2016. The Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: 1). Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made of Rs. 4,01,00,001/- on account of unexplained income. 2). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unexplained income. 3. Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that apart from statement of loose papers and order of settlement commission, no material is against the assessee. 4. Ld. CIT(A) citing a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Vineet Gupta (2014) 46 taxmann.com 439 (Delhi) held that declaration made by any party, before the settlement commission is not binding upon the assessee, therefore, no additions can be made in absence of any concrete evidence and granted relief to the assessee. 5. Now by way of second appeal, revenue has come before us. 6. We have gone through the impugned order and heard both ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipt issued by seller was recovered - Said MOU as well as receipt in question were found to be unsigned documents and transaction had not materialized -Whether since both Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal found that facts did not establish revenue's contention that unexplained investment in cash had been made by assessee, no question of law arose from order of Tribunal deleting addition on that account - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee] 10. Ld. A.R. also cited a judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the matter of Sunrise Education Trust vs. ITO 92 taxmann.com 74 (Guj.) wherein it is held: Section 68, read with section 147. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Bank deposits) - Assessment year 2010-11 - As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that order passed by AO in absence of either 'reason to believe' as envisaged under section 147 or escapement of any income was without jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that Id. AO erred in law and on facts in framing assessment u/s 143 (3) r w s 147 of the Act on factually incorrect foundation. 3. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing ground challenging levy of interest u/s 234A/234B & 234C of the Act. 4. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing ground challenging initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, edit, delete, change or modify all or any of the ground before or at the tim....